Mr. W. Ono Ujor
City Planner

Community Redevelopment Agency
     of the City of Los Angeles                                                                                November 24, 2006
354 South Spring St.
Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90013

Attn: Mr. W. Ono Ujor

Re: Response to Subsequent Initial Study For Proposed Hollywood Orange Building at 6931-6935 Hollywood Boulevard (SIS)

Issue of Notification

The original legal notice for this document was listed in the Los Angeles Times October 27, 2006. The description was for the “proposed Hollywood Orange Building project (to be located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard) . . .” The response deadline was given as November 15, 2006. The project address given was for the Hollywood CRA office with no mention of the correct one, as referenced in the heading to this document. No further publications with a correct address were made.

I contacted Kip Rudd of the Hollywood CRA office shortly before the November 15 deadline and asked what the new legal deadline was. He was unaware of the mistake in the legal notice and asked me to fax over a copy of it., which I did. Hearing nothing further on the issue, I contacted Mr. Ujor of the CRA on November 14 and was told that they were aware of the mistake and had extended the deadline until November 24. Though extended, the CRA had not republished the legal notice with the correct address, as required by law (it is a legal notice after all).

Then the CRA issued a letter dated November 1, 2006 stating the deadline was November 21. This letter appears to have been sent sometime after November 1 as others have stated to me that they had not received it until November 21.

Needless to say, this jumbled mess of dates and procedures does not meet the requirements of CEQA notification. Hollywood Heritage is responding to the November 24 deadline but reserves the right to further respond when a correct review period is re-established. The review period has to be re-published with the correct address and all interested parties notified in a timely manner so that the requirements of CEQA are met for notification and project review. The date must also be consistent in all notices. As it stands now, the CEQA notification and review process for the SIS is in violation of the law and, as such, voids this as an approval process for the SIS.

SIS Failure To Meet Conditions Of The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and FEIR

The 1986 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan included wording that the design guidelines would be created for the Hollywood Boulevard District, where the SIS project is located. These guidelines were to have been prepared within 2 years of the adoption of the Plan (May 7, 1986). Guidelines were prepared, but were so watered down that the city planning department deemed them unenforceable and refused to adopt them when they were submitted in 1992.

The 2003 FEIR for the amended Hollywood Redevelopment Plan included Hollywood Heritage’s question regarding why they (and several other plans) have not been adopted 15 years (then) after they were due (Comment Letter 13 and response page A47-48, 2003 FEIR).

The 2003 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan repeated the same wording for the guidelines, but gave the CRA yet another 5 years to prepare them so that they would be ready only 22 years after the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The FEIR responded to our inquiry stating that funding was budgeted to have all guideline reports finished by 2005. To this date, nothing has been submitted, and to our knowledge, nothing has been prepared since the rejected 1992 guidelines.

With this lack of binding language, the Plan is in default if projects are approved that required the acceptances of the Hollywood Boulevard District guidelines. This is made clear when the Plan states that no project shall be approved that does not meet the conditions of the Plan. As the guidelines do not yet exist, compliance is impossible. The CRA cannot interpret what the guidelines might say. Neither the city council office nor design review committee are capable of providing compliance rulings with the Plan. All anyone can do is issue forth an artistic opinion, not a legal ruling of Plan compliance, short of demonstrable psychic abilities concerning the exact wording of the unwritten design guidelines.

As no such psychic claim has been made, never mind proven, any approval of the SIS to be in legal accordance with the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and related FEIR (2003) will have to wait until the guidelines are prepared and adopted by the city council as is required by law. Therefore the SIS is non-compliant under the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and must be rejected as the Plan’s language clearly and unequivocally states.

Review Of The SIS

Page IV-62 of the SIS refers to compliance with the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. The reference made here is for compliance with the goals of the Redevelopment Plan, with no mention of the Hollywood Boulevard Urban Design Guidelines, nor the Hollywood Transportation Plans being met. As previously noted, neither of these exist and are at least 2-3 years away to be in an ordinance form from city council approval.

Therefore the SIS is deficient in its response. The project cannot be said to not be in “conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project …adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.”  (page IV-61). The CRA is just such an agency with this authority, and the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Plan (Plan) states the governing rules. The Plan states that no permits or approvals can be issued until all requirements are met. Their requirements include meeting the above referenced design and transportation guidelines. These were to have been approved 18 years ago by the CRA and the city. As they do not yet exist, that does not mean that projects can be approved without them. The inexcusable delinquency of the CRA and city does not void the terms of the Plan. To allow approvals of projects that have not met the guidelines is to amend the Redevelopment Plan. As the CRA did this in 2003 and still kept the requirement of the guidelines, then their importance and standing has been reconfirmed.

The project SIS is, subsequently, not in compliance and cannot be until it meets these guidelines. Meeting a hypothetical set of interpretations is not what the Redevelopment Plan states. The CRA and the city know this and cannot be permitted to keep sending projects through while the approval process, especially for the public, is unknown and therefore unenforceable.

For the same reasons, it cannot be assumed that the SIS would be in compliance with the Hollywood Transportation Play whenever it is completed (Cumulative Impacts page IV-109). As no project can be approved without having met the requirements of this plan, it is impossible to claim that the SIS is compliant with traffic and parking issues.

Historic Resources

The SIS refers to impacts on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Grauman’s Chinese Theater, and the Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment National Register Historic District (HBCED). While the Chinese is part of the HBCED, other contributing structures to the HBCED that are directly across the street from the project site are not reviewed. The two most impacted are the Roosevelt Hotel (1927) across Hollywood Boulevard and the Don Lee Cadillac Building (1929) across Orange Avenue. While the Roosevelt is 12-stories tall, the three story SIS project is considerably taller than a typical building of 3-stories coming in at 66 feet. Its visual impact on the Spanish Revival styled Roosevelt is significant due to its solid glass frontage; with large billboard covering both sides of the tallest section of the project. The Don Lee Cadillac Building is two stories, approximately 30 feet in height. The SIS project would then be 120% taller and of a much different style, massing, and materials compared to the concrete Art Deco structure.

But even the review on the Chinese Theater was inadequate. In a historic district federal guidelines allow for differentiation in appearance from historic buildings but there must be “compatibility in size, scale, design, materials, color, and texture.” Page 10 of the Historic Resource Report, SIS Appendix E1, refers to approval of the 2000 project as a basis for the current one. It claims (as part of point number 3) the “approved project is compatible in height, scale, and massing.” That being said, we would agree that “design, materials, color, and texture” are not compatible. As for height and massing, the SIS is mistaken as it is only referring to the smaller structure immediately adjacent to the Chinese Theater at 40 feet in height. The other side of the structure is 66 feet tall, or 65% taller than the Chinese, and therefore is not compatible (due to the incompatibility of the design being reinforced by the height). The billboards alone appear to be in excess of 40 feet in height. They are attached to this section, and they will therefore have a negative impact adding to that of the structures previously described as incompatible.

The SIS project and related signage also do not match points 4 and 5 of the Historic Resource Report, page 10, which states that “the Historic District includes buildings with a variety of scales and styles,” yet as shown above, the issue of incompatibility with the existing scales and styles is extensive. This is emphasized on page IV-33 of the SIS, “Exterior cladding generally consists of stone, or a less substantial material meant to simulate stone, such as terra cotta, or scored plaster. The smaller buildings are typically of masonry construction and sheathed in stucco.” Not at all compatible with the SIS project of glass and metal.

Even though no effort is made to be compatible with the buildings of the HBCED, the material used for paving is being made compatible to “the paving material next to the Walk of Fame shall be comparable with the charcoal terrazzo.” (SIS page IV-34, CUL-2)

Point number 5 on page 10 of the Historic Resources Report refers to the signage. It claims the 3 large surface material billboards will have no negative impacts as they have been traditional in Hollywood. The traditional large signs in Hollywood were for onsite advertising of tenants, not off-site billboards as this proposes. Also the signage was not the predominant feature of the structure as it is here. The minimalism of the glass box design used here makes the billboards and what they are advertising the dominant visual element. In other words the main design element of the SIS project can be a 40 foot tall image of a beer bottle or scantily clad model promoting underwear.

For these reasons, the statement of signage compatibility in the HBCED is false and misleading.

HBCED Cumulative Impacts

Pages 8-9 of the Historic Resources Report state the CEQA reference that has tremendous relevancy here:

“Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration or (sic-of) the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 (b) (2) (A).) (emphasis added)

The alteration of the empty lot adjacent to the Chinese Theater for the project is an obvious alteration, and the lot is within the boundary of the HBCED. The previously described areas of incompatibility clearly respond to this CEQA guideline for a “significant impact.” Somehow though, the report and the SIS go no further other than to state the guideline and describe no impact, a violation of CEQA in and of itself. Although, an issue is made of it to show compatibility for the paving material to the terrazzo Walk of Fame. So the preparers are aware of the CEQA violation but only attempt to cure and mitigate it for the Walk of Fame, not the Chinese Theater, nor the HBCED.

Beside impacts already stated on the Chinese Theater and surrounding landmark buildings, the negative individual and cumulative impacts on the HBCED are defined in the National Register Bulletin 15 (“Bulletin”) concerning the issues of a National Register Historic District:

“District

“A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects unified historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.

“The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources
which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.” (Bulletin, page 3)

“Intrusions” can occur but they are discouraged because their cumulative impact can break apart an historic district.

“The number of noncontributing properties a district can contain yet still convey its sense of time and place, and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district’s integrity.” (Bulletin, page 3)

In this area of the HBCED, the intrusions (non-compatible, non-historic structures) would become alarming with the SIS project. To the immediate west of the Don Lee Cadillac Building is another example of modern design, the Hollywood Galaxy (1991) and adjacent to the Chinese Theater’s east side is the larger scale modern styled, with extensive use of large billboards, Hollywood and Highland project. These have done much to break up this section of the district and would be dramatically compounded by the SIS project.

Further clarification of the relationship of structures within the district is given under the heading of “Setting”:

“Relationships between buildings and other features or open space.

“These features and their relationship should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.” (Bulletin, page 45, emphasis not added).

The effects of these ongoing intrusions as would be illegally encouraged by the SIS are very damaging to the HBCED, as shown below:

“HISTORIC DISTRICTS

“For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district’s components must be substantially unchanged since the period of significance.

“When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district’s integrity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment. A component of a district cannot contribute to the significance if:

· it has been substantially altered since the period of the district’s significance or

· it does not share the historic association of the district.” (Bulletin, page 46)

Besides the aforementioned Federal guidelines, there are additional CEQA issues here. The impacts as described herein, especially in their reference to impacting the HBCED as per the Federal guidelines trigger the “Cumulative Impacts” response for CEQA compliance. CEQA defines this as “two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §15130(a), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21083(b) ).

By referring to the 2000 studies as a basis to approve this SIS, it should be remembered that in 2000 the Hollywood and Highland project was over a year away from completion and its impacts could not be accurately measured. Now it is obvious and this impact, not effectively measured in 2000, along with this SIS project and the 1991 Hollywood Galaxy are a definite grouping of negative impacts on the HBCED that now require a Cumulative Impact study for their impacts on the HBCED in general and on the immediate landmark structures in particular.

What is most appropriate here is to use the legal arguments prepared by the developer’s own attorneys, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, LLP (SMRH). These positions were stated in their written response in opposition to the approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hollywood and Highland Project (SCH#09709/061), March 1998. These are the same attorneys that have prepared the arguments for the proposed project here, yet when one reads their statements and demands from 1998 against the Hollywood and Highland Project (HHP), they are just as accurate against their own project today. Ever more so when the issue of cumulative impacts are taken into consideration as they attacked the impacts of only HHP and did not consider the cumulative impact of that project and the one they propose today. It should be remembered that these two projects are only separated by the Chinese Theater, and that proximity would make impacts similar for the SMRH written comments in 1998 when compared to the location of the proposed project today. (References below are made from the SMRH letter of February 18, 1998 pages 22-37, sections refer to identification by the FEIR.)

The legal significance of the SMRH letter concerning Urban Design / Aesthetics when applied to the proposed project cannot be overstated (page 34-35 section 27). A copy of these pages is included herein. What they strongly demonstrate is that the cumulative impacts of the HHP and the proposed project were not evaluated during its CEQA process as required by law. The reasons are obvious. The HHP was under construction and its actual visual impacts could not have been evaluated. Moreover, the HHP’s realized appearance is quite different from the one proposed ruing the CEQA review of the proposed project over six years ago. Secondly, the cumulative impacts of just the HHP are already significant according to SMRH:

“Contrary to the conclusory analysis in the DEIR, it would appear that significant cumulative urban design / aesthetics impacts are quite likely to occur, given that the Agency (CRA) and City have never adopted comprehensive design guidelines for the Hollywood District.” –page 35, section 27.

The impacts have thus occurred, and the CRA and the City have still not adopted the aforementioned plans, as is also described in this letter. Therefore no evaluation could have been made of the proposed project for its cumulative impacts. As the attorneys state, the HHP never had such evaluation, and the lack of “comprehensive guidelines” in 1998 is just as relevant today for the proposed project.

Based on the facts and the arguments made by the developer’s own attorneys, there is absolutely no legal manner in which CEQA has been met for the proposed project concerning Urban Design / Aesthetics. Therefore it is mandatory that CEQA be reopened for the proposed project to determine the cumulative impacts of both it and the HPP, as well as other incremental impacts that have occurred over the past six years.

The importance of lesser incremental impacts over time is highlighted in the SMRH letter, page 34, section 27:

“The evaluation of cumulative impacts plays a crucial role on the CEQA process because environmental change often occurs incrementally with no one project appearing to cause significant adverse effects, but ‘which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.’ Bozung, v. Local Agency Formation Com. 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975).” – page 35, section 27.

A similar case in San Francisco is also cited to backup the legal case law for this position. With these arguments concerning “no one project appearing to cause significant effects,” the HHP and the proposed project are each well above that threshold and easily trigger the above legal citations. To not reopen CEQA and review the proposed project, with all of the related cumulative impacts on the Hollywood Historic District, is obviously an argument with no legal standing. On the contrary, the SMRH letter proves CEQA must be reopened.

Conclusions

Under CEQA the SIS must be rejected. The overwhelming concern of the wholly inappropriate design of the structure and its contextual relationships to Los Angeles and National landmark structures and the Historic District is the most condemning of all these negative impacts. The developer obviously understands this, as his attorneys made such arguments against the Hollywood and Highland Project in 1998, located just a few feet from this proposed project. Their own statements are more than the legal evidence needed to deny the approval of the proposed project’s design. When added to the additional facts stated here, there is no legal standing for the approval of this project as proposed.

The developer must go back and redesign / rethink the project so that it generates benefits and profit to them and the community, not the disdain and controversy that this would. The city needs to approve a project worthy of this most important location, next to one of the most famous and treasured buildings in the world, in one of the most widely known historic districts in the world. The previously approved Hollywood Galaxy and Hollywood and Highland projects were heralded for their modern architecture at the time of their approvals only to be thought of otherwise when completed. Please do not provide the approval for this “third strike” and force legal action to protect the law, our history, our tourism industry, and common sense.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nudelman
Director of Preservation Issues
Hollywood Heritage

jc/RWN